◆ SpookStack

¢@ @«¢ 190 ; 4 Nardone et al. vs. United States. 4 general statutes of limitation.t The rule of exclusion of the sovercign is less stringently applied where the operation of the Law is upon the avents or servants of the fevernment rather than on the sovereion itself? ‘The second class,--that where publie officers are impliedly ex- eluded from language embracing all persons,—is where a reading which would include such officers would werk obvious absurdity as, for example, the application of a speed law to a policeman pur- suing a criminal or the driver of a fire engine responding to an alarna,® % For years controversy has raged with respect to the morality of the practice of wire-tapping by officers to obtain evidence. Jt has been the view of many that the practice involves a grave wrong. In the light of these cireumstances we think another well recog-. nized prineiple leads to the application of the statute as it is WTit-_ ten so as to include within its aweep federal officers as well as others. That principle is that the sovereign is embraced by gen- eral words of a statute intended to prevent injury and wrong.’ The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. So ordered. 7United States v. Hoar, 2 Mason, 311, 314-315, ee* he prohibitions [against any form of getion except that specified in the statute) if any, cither express or implied . 2 . are for others, not for the govesgment, They may be obligatory on tax ecallectors, They may pre- vent any suit at Isw by such officers or agents.’’ The Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall, 227, 239 << These Provisions unmistakably disclose definite intention on the part of Congress effectively to safeguard rivers and Other navigalde waters against the unauthcrized erection therein of dama or other structures for any purpose whatavever, The plaintiff maintains that the restrictions au imposed appty- only to work undertaken by private parties. But no aueh intention ia expressed, and we are of opinion that none is implied. The measures adopted for the enforcement of the Prescribed rule are in general terms and purport to be applicable to all. No valid reason has been or can be suggested why they should apply to private persons and not to federal and atate officers. There is no presumption that regulatory and disciplinary measurea do not extend to such officers. Taken at face value tho language indicates the purpose of Congress to govern conduct of ita own officers and employers an well as that of othera’’ United Btates v. Arizona, 240 U. B®. 174, 184. Compare Stanley vy, Behwalby, 147 UL 8. 508, 515; Don- nelley vp. United States, 276 U. 8, 505, 511, * Balthasar v. Pacific El, Ry. Co., 187 Cal, 302; Btate v. Gorham, 110 Wash. 330, . re United Staten vr. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315; United States oe. Herron, 20 Wall, 251, 263; Black on Interpretation of Laws (2d Ed.) 97. eee oe a ap